Bipartisanship Compromises Our Future

As of Sunday, February 26, 2012

Those on TV who are paid to tell us what we ought to think have told us that Americans want politicians to exhibit "cooperation and bipartisanship."

Well, in the past 10 days we got that cooperation in a bill to extend the Social Security payroll tax cut and extend unemployment benefits. It was easy.

Everyone agreed to borrow more money from China and raise the deficit. It was stereotypical Washington celebrating Presidents' Day with its Mandarin Master Card.

Now, there was the usual "smoke and mirrors" promising money would be raised to cover the cost. It was agreed that several years from now the government would sell communications spectrum to cellphone companies. In the meantime, China or the Federal Reserve printing press would provide the funds. And, with our dollars, China might even buy the spectrum.

Congressional Republican and Democratic leaders actually like to agree on such things, because neither has to take responsibility for the agreement.

Our Constitution sets up a complex and limited government. It was not designed to be a model of efficiency and cooperation. If the Founding Fathers had wanted to create an efficient government, they would simply have made George Washington a king.

Ours is a government of divided powers with three branches. One branch, the Congress, is itself even divided into two more branches. The reason why conservatives do not want the government to do much is that it does not do anything efficiently. And that is by design, for which we are thankful.

But this year, the media consensus was that the Republican message of deficit reduction was losing out to the Democratic message of middle-class payroll subsidy. So in the midst of an important debate as to whether to expand federal spending with new taxes or shrink government with fewer taxes and less spending, the politicians put aside their differences to give deference to something on which both sides could agree: polling data.

The people actually want a large federal government. They want an Army large enough to destroy Iran while having enough muscle in reserve to defend Taiwan and crush the Taliban. They want money for the public education of the mentally challenged and prescription drugs for Medicare.

From building rail to providing health care for the poor, there is little that the federal government does that lacks an enthusiastic constituency. Even Newt Gingrich alluded to the problem when he told America that something as apparently wasteful as sugar subsidies had so much support that it could not be cut from the budget.

Yet no one wants to pay for what they get. When the federal government announced a bipartisan prescription drug program for Medicare, there was no tax increase or spending reduction to pay for it. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, supported by both parties, were fought with borrowed money. Then, with the national debt all too high, the Obama administration doubled that debt with a bailout and stimulus plan.

A ray of light did enter the "tunnel of debt" when the tea party came along. They won the midterm election for the Republicans with a promise to lower spending and repeal a health care bill that threatened make the deficit of today look like a firecracker compared with the deficit of tomorrow, a hydrogen bomb.

Tea party Republicans were then criticized for causing "gridlock" when the only thing they did was to cauterize the fiscal bloodletting that characterized the federal budget. Republicans stopped Democrats from more social spending. Democrats stopped Republicans from more tax cuts. It was ugly, but it was what the Founding Fathers expected, a government so divided that its power was held in check.

Unfortunately, the Founding Fathers did not know about the modern political reality of polling and pandering. With the new Payroll Tax Bill, Democrats got more social spending on unemployment compensation and less payroll withholding. Republicans avoided higher income taxes to pay for the Democratic initiative. The people even got the same level of government spending with fewer taxes. Democrats won. Republicans won. The people won. Even the Chinese got more American debt from which to profit.

The only ones who lost were our grandchildren, who will have to pay for this bipartisanship. They were not polled, but their future was compromised.

Robert M. Levy is chairman of the Moore County Republican Party. Contact him at Law52@prodigy.net.

More like this story

SH59 1 year, 2 months ago

"The reason why conservatives do not want the government to do much is that it does not do anything efficiently. And that is by design, for which we are thankful." YIKES! That's a scary statement.

DaveyNC 1 year, 2 months ago

@SH59, it wouldn't be scary if government were less omnipresent.

One area of the government that is arguably more efficient is in the area of foreign affairs. The Constitution gives the President comparatively unchecked power in foreign affairs. And we may be about to enter yet another war under our Nobel Peace Prize-owning chief executive. Because war is good when it is a Democrat in the White House. When it is a Democrat, war is a moral imperative to stop oppression. When a Republican is in the White House, it is a war for oil or a way to enrich defense contractors.

So I'm thinking that a little more gridlock would be a good thing. When those jackasses are engaged in fighting with each other at every turn then they are likely leaving the rest of the world alone.

JimHeim 1 year, 2 months ago

This nation was built into the richest, most powerful nation the world has ever known in an environment of compromise and consensus. For most of the nation's history, both sides in Congress (and the state legislatures) were able to cope with the issues confronting them and develop solutions through contributions from all sides.

Then came Newt Gingrich, who turned Congress into warring camps with little ability to cooperate. And that rancid philosophy was pushed down to all levels of government. The stated purpose was to render government small and ineffective.

Since then, this country has been on a mostly downhill course. Republicans have chosen national failure as a goal, and they work almost three days a week to make that happen. take a look around and decide how they're doing.

DaveyNC 1 year, 2 months ago

Riiiggghhhhtttt, JimHeim. Those were the days. They never argued among each other, they just moved on.

What you are pining for are the days when the Dems held a majority and Uncle Walter told us how it was every night. Back then, the Reps were stuck in a minority and accepted it so long as they got tossed a bone once in a while. Your complaint is like Beverly Perdue lamenting that she has never seen things as divisive as they are now without understanding that the Dems called the shots for over 140 years in this state. You guys' idea of compromise is everybody else doing it your way. Which we see in Obama's de facto implementation of cap and trade policies via regulation as opposed to legislation.

You want those of us on the right to compromise? Fine. You guys give up the Departments of Education and Energy and we'll spring for the Department of Agriculture and shutting down, say, the TSA. Or Medicare Part D. How's that for compromise?

Toyboy52 1 year, 2 months ago

The philosophy of a Democrat compromise is similar to that used by the old Soviet Union. It is best illustrated by the pride you feel when you come home with a new car and show it to your Democrat neighbor, He surprises you by insisting the car should belong to him. You laugh and say that you bought the car. The car is yours. The neighbor then says, " O.K., let's compromise. We will share the car 50/50"

skylinefirepest 1 year, 2 months ago

Hey Jimmy, you been sucking the same stuff Moonie likes?? Take a look around you and tell me honestly that it's the Republicans that are screwing your grandkids out of their inheritance...oh, I'm sorry, if Obama gets re-elected then they probably won't have an inheritance, will they?? Headed for SIXTEEN TRILLION bucks, big boy, can you tell me without looking it up how many zeroes that is? How many tractor trailers it would take to haul it? HOW WE ARE EVER GOING TO GET IT PAID DOWN WHILE YOU NIMRODS KEEP GIVING OBAMA THE AUTHORITY TO BORROW IT FROM CHINA???? Jim, what do you do for a living other than praising Obama? Do you make a lot of money? Are you actually one of the "one percenters" that this administration is waging war with? Your class warfare is getting a little old, Jimmy.

geoffcutler 1 year, 2 months ago

Great to hear from someone who understands how the country was, (and was not) designed. Another great article, Bob.

JimHeim 1 year, 2 months ago

Put me in the column that thinks a war with Iran is every bit as idiotic and pointless as the war with Iraq.

JimHeim 1 year, 2 months ago

By the way, I have no problem with paying for the government we need. It seems the tea party has a different take. Remind me, where is the tea party, anyway?

geoffcutler 1 year, 2 months ago

And always glad to hear from the side who doesn't understand how the country was designed. Ain't freedom grand?

bigD 1 year, 2 months ago

Jim- The Tea Party has served it's purpose. They put a stop to the European style socialism attempted by the Reid, Pelosi, Obama trio. The Supreme Court will be dealing with Obamacare this spring and in the Fall independent minded voters will determine the next four years. I'll bet dinner at Southern Prime the Republican nominee wins in November.

DaveyNC 1 year, 2 months ago

I have no problem with paying for the government we need, either. Or that which is mandated by the Constitution. I just think that less is more, JimHeim, and I suspect you like things pretty much the way they are. I could be wrong about that, though I don't think you are terribly interested in compromise as you said earlier.

deidretg 1 year, 2 months ago

Mr. 'Bob', here are a few samples of the compromises that we, as children and grandchildren of the 'Greatest Generation' are left to deal with by them. Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can fix this. Our payday as a nation has come and the losses to both our freedoms and future prospects are guaranteed.

FORBES.COM The ‘Old’ New Deal Still Isn’t Paid For Jim Powell, 02.11.09, 11:45 AM EST

What are we to make of all the talk about a "New New Deal"--starting with the current stimulus package--when we haven't paid for the old New Deal? During the 1930s, the old New Deal cost about $50 billion in federal expenditures from 1933 to 1940, excluding functions such as the U.S. Post Office and the State Department.

Today, the future cost of old New Deal programs still in effect is reckoned at more than $50 trillion. These programs include Social Security, Medicare (an amendment to Social Security), Aid to Families with Dependent Children (part of Social Security), Fanny Mae, the Tennessee Valley Authority, farm subsidies and large-scale government intervention intended to prop up troubled sectors of the economy. We aren't paying down these obligations inherited from the old New Deal. On the contrary, the total tab keeps getting bigger every year. While the old New Deal involved unprecedented peacetime spending during the 1930s, its current escalating obligations dwarf that spending.

NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE CBO: Social Security Now Officially Broke By Kevin D. Williams - January 26, 2011 – 12:57pm

Today’s CBO report has some bad news about the deficit. But CBO has some really, really bad news about Social Security: It’s officially broke. The CBO’s revenue/expenditure estimates now place the program in permanent deficit. There had been some hope that payroll taxes would recover sufficiently post-recession to put the program back into the black (the theoretical black) for at least a few more years, putting off the day of reckoning for an election cycle or more. No more: The new CBO estimates put Social Security in the red for as far as the eye can see.

deidretg 1 year, 2 months ago

Continuation:NATIONAL JOURNAL Trustees: Medicare to Go Broke in 2024 By Matthew DoBias May 13, 2011 / 12:47pm Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund will become insolvent in 2024, five years sooner than previously estimated, largely due to the sluggish economy, the Social Security and Medicare Trustees report. Medicare costs will continue to grow substantially, from a 3.6 percent share of the economy in 2010 to 5.5 percent by 2035, the trustees project in their annual report.

ARMY TIMES Odierno: Army could drop to 32 brigades By Kate Brown - Staff writer Posted : Friday Feb 24, 2012 9:26:03 EST

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno said Friday the Army could drop from today’s 45 brigades down to 32, depending on the results of an internal Army study. ARMY TIMES Drawdown lowdown: 9 things you need to know By Jim Tice and Lance M. Bacon - Staff writers Posted : Sunday Feb 19, 2012 9:37:41 EST

The drawdown looms large. While the Army is being cagey about exactly how it will shrink to pre-9/11 size, several things have become crystal clear. There is a target list and it’s not as benign as you might think — or hope. Among those with “targets” on their backs: • 4,000 master sergeants and sergeants major. • Practically everyone who’s been in trouble since entering the Army. • “Terminal” NCOs. • Anyone who is overweight or can’t pass the PT test. Soldiers will be subjected to: • Reclassification or discharge for soldiers in over-strength military occupational specialties. • Sharply reduced recruiting missions. • Fewer re-up options and bonuses.

ARMY TIMES U.S. weighing steep nuclear arms cuts

By Robert Burns - The Associated Press Posted : Wednesday Feb 15, 2012 9:05:33 EST

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is weighing options for sharp new cuts to the U.S. nuclear force, including a reduction of up to 80 percent in the number of deployed weapons, The Associated Press has learned. Even the most modest option now under consideration would be an historic and politically bold disarmament step in a presidential election year, although the plan is in line with President Obama's 2009 pledge to pursue the elimination of nuclear weapons. No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to around 1,000 to 1,100, 700 to 800, or 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations. The potential cuts would be from a current treaty limit of 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. A level of 300 deployed strategic nuclear weapons would take the U.S. back to levels not seen since 1950 when the nation was ramping up production in an arms race with the Soviet Union. The U.S. numbers peaked at above 12,000 in the late 1980s and first dropped below 5,000 in 2003.

deidretg 1 year, 2 months ago

This is just the beginning of sorrows and I find it unsettling, to say the least,that you fellas can get all worked up on the national level but not one word against the $55,000,000+ boondoggle in our own county that ultimately results in the closing of our finest schools because there's no money left. Our county management has put us at the edge of a financial cliff that will not even be fully understood until after the election of 2012. Neither Democrats nor Republicans want us voters to know the full extent of our coming 'pain' until after the election. 2013 and 2014 should be real eye openers for us all.

geoffcutler 1 year, 2 months ago

and you...sadly predictable... contributing nothing of use to most discussios. .

JimHeim 1 year, 2 months ago

The fact remains that when Congress was capable of compromise, this country flourished. Since then it has begun what may be an unstoppable slide into oblivion. The American century may well be ending.

DaveyNC 1 year, 2 months ago

Here, have a look at our future: http://goo.gl/DgqiX

So many on the left have for so long wanted us to be more like Europe, particularly the socialist part of it. Well, we are on that path just as Europe is learning that it can't work.

We either change course voluntarily or it will be forced on us.

Toyboy52 1 year, 2 months ago

Compromise in and of itself is not the problem. The problem comes when the sole purpose of the compromise is to escape responsibility for the result of the compromise. In this case, the result is more debt without a budget offset. When Daniel Webster compromised he took full responsibility for the perpetuation of slavery to keep the Union in tact. Today's compromise is an effort to escape responsibility for keeping a voting base happy.

teufelhunden 1 year, 2 months ago

I mean no disrespect but...this is all so tiring and old. Let's move on.

Iam 1 year, 2 months ago

The ongoing chatter in this comment section illustrates the inability of our elected officials to reach agreements on what is best for the nation: my opinion is right therefore your opinion is wrong. This is stuff for comedy central, not for those who desire to be world leaders. Look to nature: a tree that cannot bend with the wind will be blown over in a storm. Bullies require fear to be effective. Great deeds tend to spring from brotherly love and mutual respect.

Courseaire 1 year, 2 months ago

Kung Fu: "Is it good to seek the past? Does it not rob the present?" "If a man dwells on the past, then he robs the present. But if a man ignores the past, he may rob the future. The seeds of our destiny are nurtured by the roots of our past."

Arestorer 1 year, 2 months ago

Very good, Grasshopper....

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

I loved that show. Anyone ever see the "sequel" with David Carradine as Caine's grandson, whose own son was a cop? It was called "Kung Fu: the Legend Continues" or something like that.

As for those who despise the idea of compromise: I invite you to check out the first episode of Ken Burns' The Civil War and listen to Shelby Foote's rumination on the subject.

skylinefirepest 1 year, 2 months ago

The tree that has deep enough roots won't get blown over in the storm!

Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCyJRX.... Agreed. Kung Fu was so cool!

Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago

DR-- I have Ken Burns' stuff, and I'll check out Foote's comments. In the meantime, what do you think of Obama's launch of "African-Americans for Obama?" http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama-plays-race-card-calls-on-churches-to-support-campaign.html. Folks who see this video will likely complain, "What if Romney (or Santorum, etc.) launched a campaign "White Americans for Romney"? Would that concern you? Or would it concern any of the liberals here? If not, why not? Just wondering.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

Thatcher, it's not needed. They're ALL White Americans for Romney.

The Right gets their knickers in a wad every time a minority group organizes. Why is that?

Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago

DR-- Thanks for the reply. I'm not speaking of minority groups organizing. Instead, I'm speaking only of President Obama launching "African-Americans for Obama." So that there is no confusion, is it OK for a President (any President) to actively single out a specific race of voters from whom he seeks support? If so, why? If not, why not? I look forward to the same, quick reply. Thanks!

skylinefirepest 1 year, 2 months ago

No Dusty, not all minorities have been brain-washed by the liberal handouts. There are many Republican minorities: those who dare to think for themselves and see how the left has treated them.

Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago

And by all means, if DR chooses not to reply, any liberal here...feel free to chime in!

Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvo.... I'll wait.

Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago

While we're waiting, thought my friends here would enjoy a clip from my favorite movie. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PYb_a.... Enjoy!!

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

Gee, thatcher, I'm sorry I'm not here to answer every question you have the moment you ask it.

But no, I don't give a damn if there's a group called "African Americans for Obama," any more than I give a damn if there's a group called "Rotarians for Obama" or a group called "Republicans for Obama" (which actually exists on Facebook).

Are you worried about Those People banding together? At best, it's much ado about nothing, and at worst, it bears the faint fear-stench of racism.

Now you can all go and wallow in your inevitable mud-hole of wingnut butthurt because I used the word "racism." Enjoy.

buskwon 1 year, 2 months ago

dusty rhoades (Now you can all go and wallow in your inevitable mud-hole of wingnut butthurt because I used the word "racism." Enjoy. ) Spoken like a true small town attorney.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

Spoken like a true small town attorney.

WTF does that even mean?

buskwon 1 year, 2 months ago

If you have to ask you will never know.

OldSpook 1 year, 2 months ago

DR, I believe if Mr. Obama singles out "African-Americans" to support his presidency based on the color of their skin, as he clearly does, then he is wrong. If I were to vote against Mr. Obama merely because he is African-American then I am labeled a racist. However, if Mr. Obama singles out his fellow African-Americans to vote for him then based solely on the color of his skin this would seem to indicate his racism. He is not aligning himself with a nation of people made of many races. Mr. Obama seems to be a secular popularist of questionable ethics and interested only in his personal gain. My questions remain; Are you bringing more of your paycheck home then you did 4 years ago? Are the American people better off today than they were 4 years ago?

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

There are many communities with shared interests in this country who group together to advocate for those interests and support candidates who think as they do regarding those interests.

Would you be so incensed it there was a "Farmers for Obama?" "Teachers For Obama?" I think not. But because it's African Americans, OMG RACISM! Pfft.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

If you have to ask you will never know.

In other words, even you don't have any idea what you meant, you're just tossing out random empty phrases so you'll look like you have something to say. AKA trolling.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

"Are you bringing more of your paycheck home then you did 4 years ago?

Are the American people better off today than they were 4 years ago?"

As the President says, "Yeah, let's have that discussion."

Considering where we were in 2008, the answer to both questions is yes. The Obama stimulus bill cut taxes for 95 percent of working families, he fought to extend the payroll tax cut and won, employment is up from 2008, the stock market is up, the auto industry is no longer teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, and oh yes, the guy who ordered the deaths of 3000 Americans is fish food. And this despite the Teahadist Republicans obstructing every step of the way, trying to make America fail so they could get back in office.

Please, keep asking that question, then respond to every bit of good news with pessimism and derision. See where that gets you in the general election, outside of this little echo chamber.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

Yeah, let's have that discussion:

Sales contracts for homes rose 2 percent in January

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of Americans who signed contracts to buy homes rose in January to the highest level in nearly two years, supporting the view that the housing market is gradually coming back.

The National Association of Realtors said Monday that its index of sales agreements rose 2 percent last month to a reading of 97. That's the highest reading since April 2010, the last month that buyers could qualify for a federal home-buying tax credit.

A reading of 100 or higher is considered healthy.

———

Detroit automakers race to keep up with sales

DETROIT (AP) — Auto sales are growing so fast that Detroit can barely keep up.

Three years after the U.S. auto industry nearly collapsed, sales of cars and trucks are surging. Sales could exceed 14 million this year, topping last year's 12.8 million.

The result: Carmakers are adding shifts and hiring thousands of workers around the country. Carmakers and parts companies added more than 38,000 jobs last year, reaching a total of 717,000. And automakers have announced plans to add another 13,000 this year, mostly on night shifts.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory/business-highlights-15803926#.T0zRG4cgekM

OldSpook 1 year, 2 months ago

Sorry DR, while at face value your statements appear to be true, but overall, the average American is worse off than 4 years ago with gas prices and the inherent price increases they bring. Let me be clear on one thing though, I cannot and do not place the entire blame on Mr. Obama, there is more than enough blame to give some to congress and the senate also. While I did not vote for him last time, and I certainly will not vote for him in 2012, he has done some good no doubt, although not enough to overcome his questionable ethics, secular popularist agenda and a miserable foreign policy. That being said (and before you state the obvious) I do not see the GOP's three ring circus as capable of providing a serious contender to Mr. Obama's Presidency either. Maybe one day, one of the three stooges will cease attacking the others and formulate a plan to put this country back to work and cease our debtor status. But unless the GOP can solidify and present some sort of understandable plan to the American public I fear those of us who do not follow secular popularist theology will continue to lose ground.

AFCHIEF 1 year, 2 months ago

So if your a White Candidate and you tell Whites you need to vote for a White President would this be racist? But if your a Black President and you ask Blacks to vote for a Black President I guess this is OK.

President Obama Announces the 2012 Launch of African Americans for Obama by BarackObamadotcom

nothingspecial 1 year, 2 months ago

Great question, Thatcher and great movie!

DR, just an observation that your replies to Thatcher were chock full of venom. But I didn't see any venom from Thatcher, unless the word "liberal" inflames you?

Put venom out: get venom back. An illuminating principal to note at the end of the day when you wonder why everyone else is beating up on you and about how the comments section is turning into an uncivilized place.

dustyrhoades 1 year, 2 months ago

But if your [SIC] a Black President and you ask Blacks to vote for a Black President I guess this is OK.

You'll notice, if you actually watch the video without your racist hate-goggles on, that he's taking exactly the same message to African Americans that he uses with white ones.

But this is really useless conversation to have with people like you. As long as he's black, everything the President does is going to be suspect to you.

AFCHIEF 1 year, 2 months ago

DR, Guess you didn't listen very carefully or you have your liberal ear plugs. HE asks a specific nationality to vote for him.

Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago

DR-- Whoa! I'm not sure where you got the idea that I had my "knickers in a wad," that I was "incensed," or that I thought Obama's video was "racism." My question to you involved none of those things. Nor (as I said before) was I speaking about Americans who on their own form groups (your example, "Rotarians for Obama") to support a candidate. I asked you whether you thought it was OK for a President to INITIATE a program for his/her support based upon race (i.e. "African-Americans for Obama"). So far, all of your responses have to do with Americans organizing themselves...and none of your responses involves Americans organizing themselves based upon their race. Look, you have essentially accused me of being a racist for asking the question. I agreed with your Sunday column that Rep. Bob Morris' position on Planned Parenthood was stupid. To me, Obama's "African-Americans for Obama" would be just as stupid as "White Americans for Romney." I simply asked you, as a liberal, if you had the same take as I did on the subject (which is why I asked, "If not, why not?"). We can disagree without you labeling me a "racist."

Thatcher 1 year, 2 months ago

BTW DR-- I "hate" very few things. My wife loves beets. I hate beets, not in the way I hate Bin Laden, but more often. Hope that helps.

Comments No Longer Accepted

Bipartisanship Compromises Our Future

More like this story

Comments

May events